2022 QCCQ 14342, 2022 QCCQ 14342

Protection de la jeunesse — 229039 2022 QCCQ 14342 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002539-200 DATE: August 12, 2022 (written judgment rendered on September 28, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and B Mother and C, deceased Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) ii and (b) (1) iii of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks that the child X be entrusted to a foster family namely to Ms. F, until the age of majority. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The hearing took place on many days. The mother was present most of the time and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of her children are endangered, but she disagrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father was represented by Me Geneviève Lucas and then by Me Michaël Pereira. The father passed away before the end of the Court process.

He had filed an application for encroachment of rights. He deceased before this application could be heard. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. On her client’s behalf, Me Neptune submits to the Court that the security and development should be declared endangered for the alleged grounds and that the recommended measures are in their best interest. [ 6 ] X has 3 siblings, Y (5 ½ y), Z (3

y) and A (16 m). The Court is also seized with their situation. Facts [ 7 ] On August 20, 2019, the DYP received a report regarding a situation of neglect in terms of supervision concerning the 3 children (A was not born at that time). At that moment the parents lived with their 3 children with the maternal grandmother, who fostered 3 young children, at her place. The father did not work, and the mother stayed at home with the children. It had been reported that the mother and the grandmother argued because the grandmother was tired of taking care of the children while the mother did not take care of them.

The mother as well as the grandmother accused each other to physically abuse the children. At one point, the mother left, leaving the children there. She was found later unconscious in another house. The children were entrusted in foster care. [ 8 ] 2 days after, the mother came back home and apologized. The grandmother agreed to have her daughter and the children back at her place. The children were entrusted back under the mother’s care with the collaboration of the grandmother.

The father was in Town A to visit his family, but was supposed to be back soon. [ 9 ] The children’s medical files show that they are late in their vaccination and Z was supposed to take anti-tuberculosis medication, but the mother never went to the nursing to pick up the medication. [ 10 ] On August 26, 2019, X had a medical appointment in Town B for his seizures. The mother went there with him, and they stayed

a few days. On September 14, 2019, still in Town B, another report was received because the mother was found intoxicated with the child in a public place. The other children were with their grandmother and were entrusted to her. On September 16, the mother was still in Town B and agreed to a provisional placement of her children for one month. She went back 2 days after with X, who was also entrusted to his grandmother. [ 11 ] The father came back from Town A on September 18, 2019.

His presence was more than welcome considering that the mother and the grandmother became overwhelmed with the situation. [ 12 ] The parents were met. The mother admitted her drinking issues, and would like to address it. She would like to keep her children and was motivated to change. She would like to receive help for that. At that moment the parents expressed the desire to have their own house, but they were aware of the long delay to have one. [ 13 ] The mother was not really aware of the medical situation of X because the doctor in Town B did not give her explanation.

She was informed by the nursing that a follow-up will be needed. He is also supposed to have a medication, but the doctor did not give her any prescription. Later, the DYP worker was informed that X has epileptic syndrome due to genetic cause. He was supposed to receive a medication since September 2019, but he did not receive it.

At the hearing, the DYP worker testifies that the situation got better with the time and such type of epilepsy could totally disappear with the time. [ 14 ] On October 1, 2019, the children were moved from the grandmother house to a foster family because of allegations of physical and sexual abuse at the grandmother’s place. [ 15 ] The DYP was informed that Y appeared scared from man and sometimes women and that it was very difficult to give her care including changing her diapers.

This behaviour raised concerns. [ 16 ] The first evaluation showed that the parents take good care of their children and care for them, but they could become overwhelmed by their responsibilities. They are aware of their difficulties. The mother would like to receive help, but the father does not see how any service could help him. [ 17 ] After concluding that the security and development of the child were endangered under

section 38 (b) (1) ii and 38 (b) (1) iii, the DYP proposed voluntary measures to the parents who agreed. The orientation report mentions that despite the facts that the parents were able to reduce their alcohol consumption, they still have a drinking issue and they did not take steps to address it. The situation was recurrent and it affects the children. X and Z have medical conditions which enhance their vulnerability. They needed to receive proper health care and follow-up. [ 18 ] The DYP worker noted at that time that the parents were able to improve their situation.

They did not seek help yet, but the motivation was present. Unfortunately, on October 4, 2019, the mother’s sister was murdered. Obviously, this event deeply affected the parents and the extended family who were not in a state of mind to take care full time of the children. [ 19 ] The parents agreed to entrust the children to a foster family for one year and to work on their issues during that time. [ 20 ] Z and X were entrusted to the same foster family since the beginning of the placement.

Both children received their treatment for tuberculosis and their vaccination. [ 21 ] The foster parents noted possible speech and development delays. They tried to stimulate him more to improve the situation. He is now going to the daycare. [ 22 ] X was always very happy to see his mother, and it is difficult for him to be separate from her. [ 23 ] Until January 2020, the mother saw her children 2 or 3 times a week at the grandmother’s place. She missed some access because she was intoxicated, but she generally well participated and the visits went well.

During that period the mother took steps to receive welfare and to register herself at [Centre A]. She was also receiving a regular follow-up from the Social Services. [ 24 ] In February 2020, the visits were modified because of an evaluation from the DYP about a risk of sexual abuse at the grandmother’s place. [ 25 ] The father was released from detention by the end of December 2019. After that he travelled a lot between Town A and Town C. The relationship between the parents was on and off.

The father never requested any help for his alcohol issues. [ 26 ] Between March 17 and the end of May 2020, the visits were suspended because of Covid-19. The mother remained sober during that period. [ 27 ] She used this time to make a request to have her own house, but the process appeared difficult for her. Her application for [Centre A] was also delayed due to Covid-19 and also due to a document that was missing. By the month of June 2020, she seems to be discouraged, her motivation and her collaboration decreased.

The visits with the children were less frequent because the mother was more frequently intoxicated. [ 28 ] The reintegration was not started because of the unresolved drinking issues of the parents and because the father was mainly absent of the life of his children. The mother also reduced her visits with the children. Indeed from September to November 2020, she saw them only 3 times, and each time, she left before the end of the visit. [ 29 ] The children travelled down south with their foster family for vacation and everything went well.

Since their return and considering the low frequency of contacts, the children’s reaction when they have to leave their mother is less intense. Progressively the children appear more secure and happy.

[ 30 ] In November 2020, the father received a two-year jail sentence. [ 31 ] The DYP worker explains that for now, the issue is not only the alcohol consumption of the parents, but also their lack of involvement in the life of the children.

Doing so, the DYP worker does not recommend that the mother be authorized to have her children with her at [Centre A] any more because it would be too challenging for her and it would create too much instability for the children. [ 32 ] In November 2020, the DYP worker met the mother to explain to her the orientation of the DYP and to tell her what the expectations were to think about a reintegration. The DYP worker tells her that her involvement toward the children decrease during the previous months and doing so, the bonds between her and her children also decrease. The mother totally recognized those facts.

She still had the desire to entrust [Centre A], but the DYP worker explained to her how it could be difficult to deal with the program and with the 3 children at the same time. Despite being aware of the expectations, the mother did not increase her contacts with the children for various reasons, but she asked for news from the foster mother and visited the children in her house when she was in Town B. [ 33 ] X had been entrusted to Ms. D and E for 2 years before being entrusted to Ms. F on April 6, 2021. Ms. D is a DYP worker.

The DYP is conscious that such situation creates a conflict of interest, but this decision had been taken to organize regular and frequents contacts between the mother and the child. X had some attachment issues and could have important tantrums when he had to be babysat. The situation improved since the beginning of the placement. [ 34 ] The DYP justifies the transfer to Ms. F by the fact that X feels better when he is surrounded by his siblings. [ 35 ] Before entrusting the children to Ms. F and to Ms.

D in the situation of X, the DYP did research to find an Inuit foster family, but the research came back negative each time. [ 36 ] When the mother had been aware of the transfer of X to Ms. D’s place, she was happy that her 3 children could be reunited. [ 37 ] The 3 children are very close together and they are very happy to be reunited.

The previous foster parents make sure to reinsure the child to avoid any feeling of reject. [ 38 ] On September 24, 2020, the mother was the victim of conjugal violence from the father and during all her pregnancy she was seen a few times intoxicated by alcohol and drugs. [ 39 ] The mother lives at the maternal grandmother’s place with 2 of her uncle. One person living there is known as sexual abuser. [ 40 ] It required around one year to stabilize the children in their foster family. Today they are at ease, they developed strong bonds with their foster mother and they feel secure.

The DYP considers that it would be detrimental for the children to bring them back in their natural environment. [ 41 ] On June 11, 2021, the Court declared that the situation of the children were endangered. [ 42 ] At the continuation of the hearing on August 9, 2022, the mother expressed that the situation of endangerment declared by the Court does not exist anymore. She testifies that, since the father passed away, her personal situation improved.

She still has the desire to attend [Centre A], but no measures had been taken in that sense. [ 43 ] She is also conscious that even if she attends [Centre A], her children will not be allowed to attend with her because most of them are older than 5 years old and they have to go to school.

She has no plan to suggest during the time she would be at [Centre A] with A. [ 44 ] The mother considers being immediately in position to take care of her children even if she did not address her alcohol consumption issues and she did not maintain regular contacts with them. [ 45 ] The mother recognized that she still displays alcohol consumption, but she told the Court that she is able to stop by herself as soon as the children are back under her care. [ 46 ] The DYP had planned a calendar of visits between the children and the mother, but the mother did not take advantage of those visits.

The last one took place in Town A for the father’s funerals. This visit required supervision and intervention from the DYP worker because the mother did not give a lot of attention to her children and she bought alcohol during her stay. [ 47 ] Ms. F had been a DYP worker. She would have thought about coming back living and working up north, but her vicinal status does not allow her to work up north. Doing so, she will continue to live in the south, but she plans to go regularly to Town E. She would have appreciated being able to register the children at school in Town D, but that will not be possible.

To compensate, she will register them at the English school. [ 48 ] Ms. F has a good relationship with the mother. They communicate together and Ms. F regularly send pictures and videos. She has more facilities to reach the mother than the DYP has. When the DYP worker tries to reach the mother for various reasons, it is always very difficult. Doing so, some medical authorizations take a lot of time to be obtained. The DYP worker would like the parental authority to be given to Ms. F as she will be able to reach the mother to inform her about the decision to be taken and taken.

Analysis [ 49 ] The situation of the child had been declared endangered due to the parents’ way of life. [ 50 ] Regarding the measures, the child is entrusted to a foster family for a long time, for longer than the maximum period establish by the law. This placement started under voluntary measures signed by the parents, and continued under provisional measures for around 2 years. During that time the parents agreed with the postponements and the accumulation of the delays. Also during that time, the parents had more opportunities to address their issues and to maintain bonds with their children.

Unfortunately, they did none.

[ 51 ] During that time, the child gained stability in a caring environment surrounded by his siblings. [ 52 ] The mother testifies, as she did in the past, that she intends to go to [Centre A]. The Court always encouraged her to go, but unfortunately, as of today, she is still not registered and her alcohol consumption issue is well present. [ 53 ] Considering the attachment of the child to his foster mother, the Court cannot make him waiting again without having any guarantee of real change.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 54 ] GRANTS the application; [ 55 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2018, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) ii and (b) (1) iii of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, namely to Ms. F; [ 57 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the mother and granted to Ms. F regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling, passport, driving licence and social insurance number; [ 58 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 59 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 60 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 61 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 62 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol and personal issues; [ 63 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 64 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 65 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2036. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: August 12, 2022